A Smart, Green City: what it takes

THOMAS HOBBES, THE GREAT 16TH-CENTURY British political philosopher,
wrote in “Leviathan” that humans living without legitimate government
would eventually dissolve into a “state of nature.” This state of nature
was brutish with violent chaos, evil discord and civil war. Legitimate
government, Hobbes believed, had a “social contract” to wield power and
authority.

Hobbes’ vision that governmental power be used for the moral good
evolved into our current view that government, particularly on the local
level, has a responsibility and obligation to protect and maintain the
safety of its citizens. Which brings us to present-day Benicia and the
return of the Valero Crude-by-Rail Project as we anticipate the
Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report (RDEIR).

Under Hobbes’ social contract, it is the obligation of local
government to maintain public safety. Anything that presents a known
risk of explosion or other significant health risk is not something that
city government should tolerate. To willingly allow a project that
presents a public danger to move forward is ridiculous. And to argue
that the Crude-by-Rail Project (CBR) is safe is equally ridiculous. A
quick Internet search reveals numerous examples of trains carrying
Bakken crude derailing or exploding.

The fossil fuel industry has a clear record of putting profits above
safety. We have ample local examples, from the Chevron fire in Richmond
to the San Bruno natural gas explosion. With tens of thousands of oil
cars carrying volatile crude into the Bay Area, one or more explosions
is all but guaranteed to occur. We all know it’s just a role of the dice
whether the explosion happens in Benicia or another town along the
line.

The conversation will probably build with the release Monday of the
RDEIR. No doubt, the discussion will be as heated as ever. Regardless,
let’s put some broad strokes on the situation, as there are several
factors to consider:

Firstly, the CBR is an effort by Valero to increase its business
and, therefore, its profits. Unfortunately, for that to happen the city
must risk its residents’ health and well-being. This is not in your
interest.

Valero, an oil company, benefits from the CBR; the city doesn’t. The
idea that Valero, or any for-profit fossil fuel company, is a “Good
Neighbor” to Benicia is silly and naïve.

Benicia’s future, and the city’s future tax base, can no longer be
dependent on heavy-carbon industries. The current tax revenue from the
refinery is not sustainable, or even desirable.

The decline in costs for renewable energy will create an energy
price deflation that will make oil non-competitive. Ali Al-Naimi, Saudis
Arabia’s oil minister, told a climate conference in Paris in June that
the world’s largest crude exporter will eventually sell solar power
instead of crude. He also renewed the kingdom’s commitment to current
levels of production, putting more pressure on U.S. oil producers and
refiners.

Besides the global switch to renewable energy, our local refineries
will be under growing pressure from regional air quality regulators to
clean up their emissions. And as the international effort to make large
emitters pay for their carbon releases grows, carbon taxes or offsets
will cut into refinery profits.

Within a decade or so, Valero and most Bay Area refineries will be
shuttered. We need to begin discussions with Valero about what happens
when they shut down. How will the refinery pay for the site cleanup and
residual hazardous waste?

Even as the tax stream from Valero declines, Benicia, like most
California cities, is also facing exponentially rising retiree benefit
costs. The revenue decline cannot be made up with increased resident
taxes (as the base gets older, it is harder to raise taxes) — so Benicia
will be forced to cut services.

Also likely: Benicia’s municipal services and government will merge
with Vallejo’s or go to a regional model. The era of small, local
government is ending for numerous reasons. Small city governments can’t
achieve the cost efficiencies or employee productivity needed to keep
pace with rising costs and retiree benefit obligations. Large
organizations can make better use of technology and smart systems to
improve productivity and increase efficiency.

Small city governments don’t have the resources needed to deal with
the future’s looming problems. Valero’s CBR clearly shows how
ineffective small cities like Benicia are in dealing with problems that
overlap. The same is true as small cities are forced to confront the
future’s critical problems of mitigating climate change, wealth
inequality (poverty, homelessness, gang violence and terrorism), and
restraining agglomeration and urban sprawl. For example, Benicia city
government’s ongoing struggles to convert to a new information
technology package. Or the City Council’s inability to address even
simple environmental issues like eliminating the use of plastic bags,
promoting renewable energy or endorsing a pro-environmental or
sustainability position. If a city government can’t agree that reducing
the number of plastic bags clogging up our landfills is a good thing,
how can it promote community respect for the environment — or more
complicated values like decency, tolerance or a respect for others?

* * *

FOR MANY REASONS, BENICIA IS AT A CROSSROADS, and its future is
worrisome. As a city, we need to come to grips with the reality that the
fossil fuel/carbon era is ending, and we have to turn to a
pro-environmental, knowledge-based and sustainable economy.

For the past several months, I’ve been researching the world’s smart
and green cities. Despite the heroic efforts of Benicia’s Community
Sustainability Commission, I’m sad to say that my lovely hometown is
neither.

I was reminded of this the other evening at a friend’s house that
overlooked our bay. The view was beautiful, with the silvery-gray
straits glowing in the declining sunlight. But when I looked closer, I
saw trash along the waterline, and the water showed traces of oil and
pollution in the shallows.

It was so much different than Copenhagen’s harbor. Did you know that
the citizens of Copenhagen had the wherewithal a few years ago to clean
centuries of pollution and trash out of their harbor? And that every
summer, four major swimming areas along that city’s waterfront attract
thousands of Danes and other Europeans to bask in the northern sun and
swim in the harbor’s clean waters?

Can you imagine going for a swim in Benicia’s harbor?

Copenhagen’s clean harbor points to the sharp contrast in attitudes
about the environment held by Europeans and Americans. After decades of
neglect, Europe has come around and now takes pride in cleaning up its
environment. Most European nations, reflecting the will of their
citizens, are mindful of waste and diligently work to reduce carbon
emissions. Hamburg, for example, is deeply worried that global warming
will raise sea levels and create havoc with their harbor and lowlands.
The city has carved out several green zones, added trees to absorb
carbon and reduced auto traffic. In Scotland, over 40 percent of the
country’s domestic energy use is supplied by renewable energy. Germany
is striving for 100-percent renewable energy by mid-century.

But Benicia — a city that sits on the water — doesn’t seem to give a
flip about potential flooding from warming seas, or the steady
degradation of its remarkably beautiful environment. The lack of concern
underscores the general sense shared by far too many Americans —
particularly those involved in the carbon industries — who view our
environment and atmosphere as one large garbage can.
Grant Cooke is a long-time Benicia resident and owner of
Sustainable Energy Associates. He is also co-author of “The Green
Industrial Revolution: Energy, Engineering and Economics.” His new book,
“Smart Green Cities” will be published in 2016.